Friday, September 21, 2012

Pamela Geller Discusses Subway Ads on CNN

Total smackdown. I have to say that CNN and Erin Burnett gained a few cool points by giving Pamela time to lay out her views clearly. But if their goal was to somehow "expose" Pamela as a bigot, they failed miserably.


Acts 17 said...

How the interviewer can be so stupid, like saying jihad nothing but struggle, like she is an expert, and trying to pin Pamela down while justifying Islam!

Acts 17 said...

Just one more thing...Erin says Pamela about "(your) Christian faith!" this is how ignorant the interviewer can be, she obviously didn't do her homework, to know Pamela is Jewish! Even if Erin is using it in a general sense, still I bet she thinks Pamela is Christian. I think she probably got a small paper from the producer about Pamela before the interview saying "Pamela -Christian -bigot - jihad - nice - struggle" and she based her interview solely on that. That's how shallow the CNN interviewer can be...

Tom said...

Oh, Thank you God for Pamela Geller... good job in making the world aware!
Its all about freedom... there was an anti-israel ad... and Freedom is the right to reply... which Pamela Geller's organisation is practising!

The right to question is also in the very fabric of civilised democracy.

The media, govererments are practising "politically correct behaviour" which the muslims are hugely capitalising on!

If the likes of Erin Bennett continue on this "path" surely
we will see the world in a nuclear holocaust(not being dramatic)
Its fine by me, christains will be raptured.

Wake Up world to true freedom!

Samatar Mohamed said...

And here is the top comment on the link.

AND SUPPORT Pamela Geller
jihad is coming to America unless we the CIVILZED pepole will SPEAK UP


David Wood said...

Let me see if I follow your reasoning, Samatar.

(1) A bunch of people in the comments section of YouTube liked an offensive comment.

(2) Therefore, Pamela Geller is evil.

Something like that?

Are you willing to accept the same standard for your own religion? That is, if I can show a group of Muslims approving of certain behavior, will you condemn the religion?

Baron Eddie said...

All non-Muslims in Islamic countries get swear at and attacked robed and killed and I ran into this web site which is funded by Islamist in Qatar and basically have a Fatwa that it says "It is OK to swear and insult Christians"

Fatwa number 50065

In Arabic

translated by google in English

أما إن كان القصد بالدين ما أحدثه النصارى من التحريف والتبديل والشرك والخزعبلات فهذا لا مانع من سبه ووصف أصحابه بالشرك والكفر.

But if the intent is to religion what caused the Christians of distortion and switch and polytheism and superstition, it does not mind insulting and describing his companions with shirk and kufr.

And they support that by Surat table 73
He said God Almighty: [disbelievers who said that God is the third of three]

Is not that savage to swear at someone in what he/she believes? and the worst part is that we don't say God is the third of three!

Baron Eddie said...

Isn't savage that a Muslim kills a Christian for no reason while he is sleeping just what happen to the Armenian man ...

And the Muslim got promoted and became a hero! ...

Yes, that is savage and encouraging other Muslims to do the same ...

Foolster41 said...

@Samatar: That is ridiculous hypocracy! Osama, kim and kangaroo all make violent comments and call for the subjugation of non-muslims here, and yet you're still a Muslim, and you swtill consider them "moderiates!"! Instead of directly calling them on these comments (even when told about them MULTIPLE TIMES after you deny ever have seen them) when you've said you would, you try to excuse them by saying "well they also say they are against violence and subjugation" (as if that makes the violent words disappear, or somehow shows that the later and not the former is how they really feel!)

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

And here is the top comment on the link.

AND SUPPORT Pamela Geller
jihad is coming to America unless we the CIVILZED pepole will SPEAK UP


I see that you didn't comment on the actual interview. Should I assume that you agree with Pam? If not, what are your objections?

Herakleios said...

Just read this article ... isnt it great, what is possible under islamic law?!

The english article is much shorter than the german. A very interesting point in the german article:

„Nach mittelasiatisch-islamischer Rechtsauffassung gibt es zur Knabenliebe keine verbindlichen Rechtsquellen, also auch keine Möglichkeit zur Bestrafung. In der Praxis waren meines Wissens auch tief religiöse Özbeken [sic], ja sogar Angehörige der Geistlichkeit, dem Knabenspiel nicht abgeneigt.“
– Ingeborg Baldauf: Die Knabenliebe in Mittelasien: Bačabozlik.[3]

In short translation: There are no known laws in middleasiatic-islamic legal sources about "boy-love". So there is no punishment. Even many of the deep religious Özbeken and clerics practiced it.

So, is it eventually possible, that although "gay" love is forbidden under sharia, it could be allowed to have sex with boys? Wow ... might be something to clearify! Sharia looks bad, but this would make it look even worse!

Herakleios said...

Oh forgot something:

"Die heutige Praxis in Afghanistan fußt auf dieser Tradition und der Vorstellung, dass zwar der Kontakt mit Frauen unrein, Knabenliebe dagegen rein sei und dass diese nicht allgemein als Verstoß gegen die Schari'a gilt"

Modern practice in Afghanistan roots on the tradition and the believe, that contact to women is "unclean", boy-love on the other hand is not unclean and so is not against Sharia law.

Search 4 Truth said...


Once again you reveal what Islam does to the mind.

The other day i was commenting on the video for "Innocence of Muslims"

And a self professed Muslims described how he would love to murder me in great detail. He said he would plunge a knife into my heart slowly and laugh as I screamed in pain and the shove a dagger into my ear.

Now tell me, what do you think that proves!

We will all watch as the hypocrisy flows from your keypad!

John 8:24 said...

Got news from a Pakistani Christian friend:

Highlights of "Love the Prophet Day" to protest against anti-Islamic movie in Pakistan -

- 20 killed
- More then 100 injured
- Church Burned in Murdan
- Mobile Phone Service Suspended
- Burned 6 Cinemas, 2 Banks, 1 KFC, 20 Private Vehicles, 5 Police Vehicles and check post of the traffic police. Incidents of looting were also reported from various areas of the city.

John 8:24 said...

"Love the Prophet Day" being celebrated in the Muslim world:

Just imagine how the media would react if were Christians celebrating "Love Jesus Day"! (BTW, can anyone imagine Christians doing this on "Love Jesus Day"?)

Anonymous said...

I find the devotion to zionism and Israel on this website to be really strange, considering the fact that the zionist regime persecutes and oppresses the indigenous palestinian population as a whole, which includes palestinian Christians. Are these people not your brothers and sisters in Christ? Or should they not resist Israel, because the zionist state is "God's land"?
I certainly support Pam's right to free speech, but for her to give the impression that the zionist regime is innocent of savagery is quite ridiculous. I hope her ads go up everywhere, because I think they do a good job of exposing the savagery of zionism and the zionist regime.

Foolster41 said...

No, you're repeating old falsehoods. what you say have grave implications..

First off, there is no such thing as "palastinains", or rather, ancient references to palastinains were JEWS. Who you call "palastinains" are Arabs who lived in Isreal and fled in 1948, when told by Arabs from neighboring countries to get out of the way of the comcing war or genocide against the Jews, in hopes of returning to a Jew-free land.

Isreal and "zionists" are not oppressing anyone or "occupying" land by anyone. If you mean the checkpoints and walls (which are only there because of PALASTINAIN trrorism and calls for genocide against Jews), you seem to imply Isreal has no right to defend herself. Surely you don't agree with this?

Israel gives full rights to Arabs, in fact more rights than Arabs and especially Jews in any Arab nation, so the claim of "persecution" makes no sense. Surely, you are against bringing false witeness againt another group of people (Ex. 20:16).

"because I think they do a good job of exposing the savagery of zionism and the zionist regime."
I'm sorry but this is completely backwards. The Arabs are not savage? It is not the Jews who are teaching children to hate another race, and call for their genocide on children's TV channels. Neither are the Jews indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian areas. Please do some research, and educate yourself.

Please check out this website:

And watch this video:

Richard said...

Erin Burnett "But why call a whole religion savages"

PG "How am I doing that, there is no Islam in the ad and no Muslim in the ad?"

EB "Ok but the word Jihad actually means struggle and (intel...?) [help me out here] in the Quran you make yourself a better person, it doesn't mean just going outside and suicide bombing people"

PG "I beg to differ"

EB "But that is what the word means it means struggle"

PG "Actually in the Quran nothing speaks to spiritual struggle its all holy war and Jihadists that are committing Jihad are citing chapter and verse of the Quran while committing Jihad"

EB "That maybe but I dont think there is anybody in that religion that would be alright with that and masses of Muslims would say that Islam is a religion of peace and love, just as Christians would say or Jews would say"

PG "But Christians are not beheading people in the name of Christ..." after this she goes off a little bit.

EB needs to be educated somewhat - In Arabic, "jihad" means struggle. In Islam, that is in the Quran 97 times and ALL the 100's of hadiths where this has been referred to, unequivocally it means holy war. There is only one weak Hadith which refers to it as a spritual struggle and this has been declared to be a fabrication.

The English translation Jihad from the Quran appears as the Arabic "Jihadu" 33 times in the Quran. These are hostile actions, wars, which Muslims are commanded by Allah, against non-Muslims, specifically with the purpose of converting them to Islam. Converting Non-Believers to Islam is what the Quran refers to as being the "cause of Allah". Quran 66.1

In addition the Quran contains the Arabic word qatilu 64 times, which means to wage war. Allah commands ALL Muslims to wage war against the non-Believer and permits them to kill their victims and to seize their possessions and women as captives of war. Muslims are encouraged to have sex, and children, with their captive women without getting married to them.

This is hardly the message of inner struggle to "better oneself" as EB argues.

This should have been clearly pointed out to Erin Burnett.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Mike

Devotion to Zionism? What exactly are you referencing? So what is exactly wrong about them wanting and defending their nation? So Muslims they arent permitted to have a small stretch of land that was their ancestors and they have been able to thrive in and defend for several decades? there are about 14 to 17 million Jews in the world. And Israel is a bastion of freedom in comparison to all of those backward fascist, intolerant Islamic nations in the region! Whats revealing is your bigotry and hypocrisy. There is no such thing as a Palestinian. Go look up where, when, and who named it Palestine! that region. You are just a victim of the Muslim propaganda!

Deleting said...

If the so-called 'Palestinian Christians' hold to a replacement theology that says threy're the 'new Israel' then NO! They are not my brothers and sisters in Christ. The Holy Spirit by way of Paul's writings are very, very clear on that(reference Romans and the book of Zechariah and Ezekiel get the point. We are partakers of the second covenant which is grace, not land or status over isreal or the Jews.

Deleting said...

Just as an aside, I'm disturbed as to how you postulated your statement. We mostly discuss Islam, an anti-Semitic ideogy which it's more concerned with the complete annilation of the Jews and world domination than salvation and human rights. As a result we do talk about Israel but not in 'Zionist' terms.
Your statement is a passive agressive way to try and win some sort of PLO sympathy when in fact, Palestine doesn't exist and the PLO knows it.
How about turning done questions back to the PLO like 'why are you sitting on over thirty million dollars when Arabs in that area are in squalor?' I'll tell you why, angry poor people b?/;): louder than we'll taken care of people.

Deleting said...

FYI all... The iPhone LOVES inserting words where I didn't mean them to be. However it doesn't like copying and pasting.
We'll-meant to say well.

Anonymous said...

This interviewer is IGNORANT of the Quran & Hadith.

Why are they allowed to even attempt to represent CNN, unless CNN is owned by Islamic Arabs.

I think someone should give out ALL the email address of CNN, so we can educate people like Erin Burnett.

How about it?

dstewart said...

It seems that this ad paints with a broad stroke that the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is one between savages and civilized people, and the justification is that there are acts of "savagery" committed by one side (It's just a fact that Israeli Jews commit acts of savagery too). The point is that one whole side can't be characterized as savage while the other is civilized simply because savage acts occur on either side. While I DO support Israel as the Jewish state, I have to admit that it just does not follow from the fact that the Palestinian side commits savage acts that Israel somehow has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

Consider this quote from anti-Zionist Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." I first came across this quote from a video one of my (very liberal) Muslim friends on facebook posted of a girl holding a banner at her graduation (they thought she was "brave" while I thought she was dense). I my question is this: How does this ad actually change anyone's mind about Israel when they have it so ingrained in their minds that it's really Israel who is the savage oppressor rather than the other way around? Also, is Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu a savage?!? As dense as I think he is on the issue, probably the last thing I'd call him is "savage".

Foolster41 said...

dstweart: What specifically IS isreal doing that's "savage"? It seems from what I've looked at, it is indeed the Palastinian and Muslim Arab side that is committing terorisim, persecuting religious minorities and calling for and preaching genocide to children. Isreal does none of these things.

I find it strange you quote Tutu after complaining about broad strokes. That is exactly what Tutu has done. He has equated Isreal with Nazi Germany, and has given weight to the genocidal "occupation" and "apathied" lie.

There are some people people are so "ingrained" to not change their minds about Isreal, but there are those who are not descided that this ad targets. that is the point of it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, to reveal to you the sort of despicable language Muhammad used—language I am too ashamed to even mention. In fact, your prophet said one of the most obscene Arabic words—the equivalent of the 'f-word' "

Refusing to pronounce or spell this word, it appears in 67 books, including Sahih Bukhari, the text containing this word, "inkat-ha" -- or, in context, Muhammad asking a man about a woman if he "f***** her" ?

Did Muhammad used any other foul language?

“Oh, boy, did he ever”!

According to Qaid al-Qadir (v.1, p.381), Muhammad told Muslims to retort to uppity infidels by saying things like -- again, he didn't pronounce it, but the text appeared on the screen –

"Go bite on your mother’s clitoris!"

Or, according to Zad al-Mi’ad (v.3, p305),

"Go bite on your dad’s penis!"

Jesus' counsel:

'The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks' (Luke 6:45)."

dstewart said...

Yes, I have huge problems with Tutu's quote as well. It's indicative of the left's tendency to choose a narrative that favours the underdog, such as the big mean apartheid state VS the poor disenfranchised Palestinians. In reality, of course, it's the tiny new Jewsish state surrounded by the hostile Arab nation of which the Palestinians are a part that would be at risk of annihilation if not for aid. That's the real reason why I quoted it, to show what goes on in the minds of the people we're supposing will be persuaded by the ad simply for pointing out the one side as savage.

Also, Muslims aren't the only ones setting bombs in Jerusalem or beating up Christians. Ultra-orthodox Israeli Jews do these things too. My Gr. 12 teacher was actually THERE when a bomb went off. He assumed it was an Islamic terrorist that set it, but it turned out to have been a Jew. Sorry, but these acts of savagery happen on our side as well.

dstewart said...

I just want to add a note about my previous comment: it was a story a high school teacher told me about years ago, and I don't remember the details exactly. All I remember was that it changed my perspective back then.

Anonymous said...

The evil spirits consistently got it right about Jesus:

Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God!” (Mark 3:11)

Also see Matthew 8:29, Mark, 1:23-24, Mark 5:7, Luke 4:34, Luke 8:28. Clearly, the demons knew who Jesus was even though the people around Him were confused.

No wonder that James, Jesus’s half-brother, who was present at least part of the time when Jesus was teaching and healing, said in his letter

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. (James 2:19)

Impeccable theology and yet all it produced was fear, not obedience. Theirs was not belief unto salvation. For that they’d actually have to bow the knee, or as Peter admonishes, “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (1 Peter 3:15a).

Foolster41 said...

@Dstewart: I admit, I don't understand what point you're trying to make at all. You said "It's just a fact that Israeli Jews commit acts of savagery too" and then after I asked what specifically Isreal does that is "savage" you give a anctidotal story about a bomb that you admit you don't have the details to determine whether
it's even true, that you said "changed your perspective", and some unsourced remarks about Jews beating up Christians and setting bombs.

As I pointed out previously, commiting genocidal terror, and teaching genocidal hatred of children of jews IS SAVAGE, so Geller is RIGHT ON to call it savage.
Whether or not there are Jews who beat up Christians or set bombs (who are quite obviously in a much much smaller minority of their respective groups than the
muslims of the reigion) doesn't make the label of "savage" any less apt. Bringing up the actions of a few Jews sounds an awful like side tracking and tu quo que to me. To be clear, you have always sounded like an ally of Isreal, which is all the more why I'm confused by what you're saying, and I'm thinking I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make.

dstewart said...

Let me try one more time to make my question clearer:

When I say that Israeli Jews do not commit acts of "savagery", I do NOT mean on the same scale as those committed AGAINST the Israelis. However, Pamela Geller's "savagery" was "any war against innocent civilians". She also machine-gunned a number of emotionally powerful examples of said "savagery". However, there is a difference between the means by which one fights for a cause being "savage" and the cause itself. Consider this: If the Arabs had NOT done it this way, would their efforts against Israel's resistance still be considered "savage"? If not, should we still support Israel? Is the ONLY reason we should support Israel because the "savagery" on the other side is greater?!? What I mean is, of course we should oppose terror, but what if it ends? Is Israel still right? There are many people who easily denounce these acts (like Tutu) who question the Jewish state by principle. People hear THEIR objections more often. They need answers too.

I know I ask difficult questions, but I think it's necessary, since I can easily see this as an objection. "Well, Israel is the savage here. Just look at the numbers!" and "Well what about Breivik?!" I actually use the stuff on this blog in real life discussions with my peers, so I like to get these questions cleared up. Of course, I support Israel, but not uncritically. I think we do better if we're consistent.

One further point: I didn't expect my anectote to persuade you. I just wanted you to see where I was coming from. If it WERE true, would the case for supporting Israel still stand? I think it can, but it needs a better answer than the machine-gunning Pamela Geller did. That's my point. BTW, the beatings DO happen, but I've only read about it happening to people who actually preach the gospel to Jews, and not so often that people actually fear it happening to them. Again, just so we're clear, I WOULD call that savage, but it's still a world apart from firing rockets at innocent civilians.

Richard said...

I disagree with the wording of the ad. The use of the words "civilised man" and "savage" have spurred a huge debate about their use and taken the focus away from the evils of Jihad, their perpetrators and sympathisers.

As I pointed out, Erin Burnett was not fully engaged on her misconception of Jihad and instead PG was defending the use of the words savage and civilised man.

The New York governor in an interview with Pamela Geller after praising her and defending her right to place the ads said:

"Now I am going to tell you why I dont like the ad and I am going to give you a chance to persuade me to think differently, hows that?"

PG "I love it"

Governor "Ok, because the term Savage, and I think you used it very correctly in this conversation, .. decapitating a 3 month year old child..., but the term savage itself historically was used as a term for people we felt were inferior to us, in may respects that was the justification for taking the land away from Indians when we got here and that was the premise of the ? doctrine where African Americans were thought to be so much less than human and this is why we are enslaving them because we are actually protecting them and it had been used from time to time for people of Arabic descent, so had you not used the word savage and just used the word Jihadists as you did, and its clear and finally I hope you get some credit for not using the term Muslim because you were not referring to Muslims. I think that might have ignited the controversy a little more than it would have"

PG doesn't take in what he says at all. So she turns off potential allies by her inability to be corrected or take any advice contrary to her thinking.

Anonymous said...

What amazes me is the IGNORANT SAVAGES in the West, who talk about a DEMONIC, SAVAGE CULT, that has been SLAUGHTERING MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS, without studying the QURAN or the HADITH.





Richard said...

Larry whatever you say is true.

If I can appreciate your point can you appreciate mine? It only devolves around the use of the word "savage".

Words in the English language have more than one meaning.

One of the meanings of "savages" are persons regarded as primitive or uncivilized. It was used as a derogatory term to put down American Indians, African Americans, indigenous tribes all over the world.

To use this in the ad is a tactical error. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer seem to have fallen in love with this word and use it at every opportunity to describe every untoward act, from vandalism to brutal murder. No other word or synonym will do.

The attack in the ad should be reserved for the ideology of Jihad (and of course by extension of Islam though we cannot say so as yet - a tactical error which Pamela Geller does not make.)

The ideology of Jihad can be called "barbaric", "vicious", "immoral", "abhorrent", "hateful", etc etc., English is a very rich language, without having to divert ones energy to defending the use of the word "savage".

Then Jihad can be explained for what it is, quoting the Quran, the Hadiths and the Jihadists themselves, who also quote the same sources.

"I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion."
Osama bin Laden


"Allah is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

From the manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Obama is supporting in Egypt and the Middle East.


“Democracy is among the menaces we inherited from an alien government. It is part of the system we are fighting against… It is not possible to work within a democracy and establish an Islamic system… If Allah gives us a chance, we will try to bring in the pure concept of an Islamic Caliphate.''

"The notion of the sovereignty of the people is anti-Islamic. Only Allah is sovereign.''

Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the leader of the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist organization.

Yes! We - the terrorists of India – THE INDIAN MUJAHIDEEN, - the militia of Islam whose each and every Mujahid belongs to this very soil of India - have returned, to execute the compulsion of Allah:

"Fight them (the disbelievers), Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and give you victory over them and He will heal the hearts of those who believe." (Qur'an 9:14).
Here we begin ... raising the illustrious banner of Jihad against the Hindus and all those who fight and resist us...

All Praise and Glory be to Allah, Who Alone Helps His slaves, Who Alone Fulfils His Promise, and Who Alone Defeats the enemy....

While hoping for the Help and Victory from Allah we declare that such and more severe attacks shall continue irrespective of what the blamers blame us for.

The hosts (of the Kafir) will all be routed and will turn and flee. [Quran 54: 45].

Anonymous said...


I would need a book to describe this SAVAGE ANIMAL, an excuse for a HUMAN BEING.


Muhammad was a cross-dresser, used eyeliner and dyed his hair with henna. Muhammad had a homosexual relationship with Zihir. Muhammad liked men to kiss his whole body. Muhammad complained to Allah that he had a problem with impotency. Allah sent the angel Gabriel with a special kind of “Viagra” in the form of food. From the 66 women he had in his harem, he never produced offspring. The only children born in his marriage to Khadiga, were born in the Jaheliya (Ignorance) period before Islam, where the practice of exchanging wives was widely spread. This was banned in the Quran sura 33:52.

He married a 6 year old child & masturbated between her thighs until she was 9 & then had full sexual intercourse with her. Millions of Old Muslims are marrying 9 year old children & raping them. Thousands of them every year from all kinds of medical problems.

Aisha’s Trick.

Aisha liked to have boyfriends and got into serious trouble with one of them, Safwan. She spent a night with him, while their caravan continued on in its journey. The next morning they had to rush to catch up, but were discovered missing. Muhammad had to get a “special” revelation to protect her from being charged with adultery. She must have like being with real men, because she thought up a plan – ADULT SUCKLING!

If women suckled men, they were classed as relations and so could be in the same room with women, when the husband wasn’t around. Aisha asked her sister Om’Kolthoum to suckle her boyfriends, so they could be in Aisha’s house and no one could accuse her of adultery again.

When you take all these facts together, you are left with one messed up Arab, who is the greatest JOKE in history!

That gets Muslims MAD!

Anonymous said...


Islam is the only religion in the world which teaches a child meaning for slitting throats and kill people who are non Muslim, even before they know how to speak.
Islam is the only religion in world in which there is no difference between animals and women.
Islam is the only religion in the world that allows RAPE and KILLING as part of its Religion.
Islam is the only religion which doesn't allow any minority to survive wherever Muslims exist in the majority across the globe.


Who kills in the name of religion?? Muslims do.
Muslims’ rape for the sake of Islam
Muslims kill, loot and riot in the name of Allah and Mohammad.
Muslims lie and cheat in the name of Allah and Muhammad
Most idiotic and evil things are carried out by Muslims, with clear conscience in the name of child Muhammad and his pimp Allah

The black stone is a vagina, why muhammad kissed it??? part 1

Isn't it amazing how crude & foul Muslims get, when their MURDERING, RAPING, STEALING CULT LEADER IS EXPOSED?
The reason for their VIOLENT OUTBURSTS is FEAR!
They are FEARFUL of the TRUTH & will MURDER anyone who exposes their EVIL CULT.
They CANNOT discuss matters in a CIVILIZED WAY, because their SAVAGES!
They have the MIND of SAVAGES & the ACTIONS of SAVAGES.
The QURAN is a SAVAGE book!
Pip Power 1 second ago

Islam is the only religion in the world which teaches a child meaning for slitting throats and kill people who are non Muslim, even before they know how to speak.
Islam is the only religion in world in which there is no difference between animals and women.
Islam is the only religion in the world that allows RAPE and KILLING as part of its Religion.
Islam is the only religion which doesn't allow any minority to survive wherever Muslims exist in the majority across the globe.
Pip Power in reply to Zaihan Hassan (Show the comment) 27 seconds ago

Pip Power 23 hours ago

Muhammad was a cross-dresser, used eyeliner and dyed his hair with henna. Muhammad had a homosexual relationship with Zihir. Muhammad liked men to kiss his whole body. Muhammad complained to Allah that he had a problem with impotency. Allah sent the angel Gabriel with a special kind of “Viagra” in the form of food. From the 66 women he had in his harem, he never produced offspring.
Pip Power in reply to Bernardo de la Paz (Show the comment) 23 hours ago

This comment has received too many negative votes. WHY?
We Christians are the true sons of Abraham because we follow the example of the faith which he had by looking unto Jesus for our salvation from sin and its consequences to righteousness and a place in the kingdom of God. We are assured that the blessings which God promised him will be ours when Jesus comes again. As it is written:
"If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise". (Galatians 3.29).
Pip Power in reply to Thorby Baslim 23 hours ago

Muhammad was a cross-dresser, used eyeliner and dyed his hair with henna. Muhammad had a homosexual relationship with Zihir. Muhammad liked men to kiss his whole body. Muhammad complained to Allah that he had a problem with impotency. Allah sent the angel Gabriel with a special kind of “Viagra” in the form of food. From the 66 women he had in his harem, he never produced offspring.
Pip Power in reply to Bernardo de la Paz (Show the comment) 23 hours ago